Phillip Perlmutter

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter rights due to unreasonable delay, particularly concerning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and errors in the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the net delay of 14 months and 9 days was reasonable given the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic and the local court context.

The court also upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and assessment of evidence, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The Crown brought a motion to remove two lawyers and their firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The lawyers, partners in the same firm, were representing two co-accused charged with sexual assault.

The respondents opposed the motion, asserting solicitor-client privilege over their defence positions and formally waiving any conflict.

The court addressed threshold procedural issues regarding the review of sealed affidavit evidence and the concept of waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that a judge's review of privileged information for adjudication purposes does not destroy or waive the privilege.

However, considering the differing DNA evidence for the co-accused, the court concluded there was a substantial and realistic risk that their defence positions would diverge, creating conflicting duties of loyalty for their counsel.

Despite the clients' waivers, the interests of justice, including the integrity of the trial process, predominated.

The motion to disqualify and remove counsel was granted.

A Kingston Police officer was charged with dangerous driving arising from an incident on March 18, 2012, when his police cruiser struck a suspect on the sidewalk during a foot chase.

The Crown alleged the officer deliberately drove his vehicle onto the sidewalk to obstruct the suspect's path.

The defence contended the collision occurred on the roadway and was unavoidable.

The court found, based on the evidence of the suspect and five independent eyewitnesses, that the collision occurred on the sidewalk.

The court further found that the officer deliberately steered his vehicle onto the sidewalk to apprehend the suspect, knowing there was heavy pedestrian traffic in the area.

The officer was found guilty of dangerous driving.